The following is a letter to the editor of the Seattle Times. And no, I did not write it, despite the God crack. The letter appears in the 10/25 edition, and I think it speaks an excellent point. Commentary, considerations, &c., are encouraged:Robert Toomey of Dain Rauscher is quoted as saying anger at Boeing for its proposed 30,000 layoffs is misplaced ("Earnings: Numbers reflect new Boeing emphasis on bottom line," Times, Oct. 19).

"The company is there to maximize return to shareholders, and that's the only thing it's there for... It's not there for us to feel good, or to give us jobs... That's unfortunate, but it's a hard truth of capitalism."

Rauscher's definition of capitalism is virtually indistinguishable from my dictionary's definition of greed ("an excessive desire to acquire or possess") and selfish ("concerned chiefly or only with oneself without regard for the well-being of others").

Makes one wonder why our nation is always so sure God is on our side. It made me chuckle.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

That's certainly an interesting definition of capitalism.
I'm suprised there isn't anything added about kicking puppies ;)

Strictly speaking, companies are interested in only one thing: making money. I've never expected a company to do anything else. Suprisingly enough, I've checked, and companies aren't a person. When layoffs occur, it's because there simply isn't enough work for the people because of a lower demand for their product, which results in a lower amount of money available to pay people.
In other words, 30,000 people lost their jobs so that 1 million could keep theirs. These people don't just work for Boeing. If boeing collapses because they can no longer afford to pay their employees, then their suppliers have a lessened demand, and then the suppliers' suppliers-a ripple effect.
This doesn't excuse the fact that CEO's with the awareness of a potted plant still make 5 million dollars even though they dropped the value of their company's stock 30 points *cough* P&G *cough*
Capitalism, however, is the reason why we have the sort of innovation that we have. Competition is why computers have gotten faster, better, cheaper and more stylish. But lack of real competition is why Microsoft Software has more bugs than a chinese restaraunt.
With the exception of military innovation-every economic system values new and creative ways of killing other people-there has never been such rapid growth of personal wealth, comfort and leisure time as we have now.
That being said, there is no reason why we, living in a capitalistic economic structure, have to persue money and only money. I daresay that's even foolish. It's not likely that we will live in a capitalistic society forever. Eventually we will reach the population limits which capitalism will support, and our society will either crumble slowly, or we will revolt into a new system, possibly corporate feudalism.

Tiassa,

You seem to be very well-read and quite intelligent. I wonder if you've read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. For a deeper understanding of just what Capitalism and "Rational Selfishness" actually mean, these would be two good places to start. If you have read them, then nevermind, of course. You've been there, done that.

In my view, however, and in and of themselves, Capitalism and Rational Selfishness make a lot of sense. What people DO with these ideas however is something altogether different. People are greedy; people take inappropriate actions. People interpret things however they please with little regard for truth or for what is rational.

We humans tend to walk a fine line in this world. Always trying to steer clear of too far to the right or left. I am fortunate that I live in America and that I have the choice--and so I choose anything that steers away from Communism, Socialism, Fascism, etc... away from anything that demands I live my life and direct all of my efforts toward the good of anything other than myself. You'll find there isn't much difference between the world's religious philosophies and that of the "mystics of muscle" -- the mystics of 'people power' in its most negative light.

I highly recommend Rand's books to anyone. You don't have to agree with everything she's proposed in order to gain a wealth of insight into the value of Capitalism.


~~~

Riomacleod,

You brought up some excellent points.

~~~

Counterbalance

Counterbalance

I tried reading Rand during my Satanic days because she was included on a reading list alongside Twain and others whose alleged commonsense contained points of value for consideration. I was 15 or 16, and utterly failed to understand it. I'm aware of its value, but in the intervening 12 years, my mind has been elsewhere.What people DO with these ideas however is something altogether different. I believe you've hit the nail on the head. I might be exploiting that point elsewhere, though various forms of it haven't had the desired effect I would hope. Thank you for your insights, of course, and do keep them coming.

RiomacleodThat's certainly an interesting definition of capitalism.Yeah, it's odd to say the least, but it does reflect certain truths. To its oddness, I'll note that the letter's author was responding to a quote from a guy at Dain Rauscher, an investment firm. The quote to which the letter's author responds invokes the old capitalist/communist argument of labor v. management. From the leftist standpoint, I do scratch my head at the suggestion that management would have anything to manage without the labor. Why cut 30,000 labor jobs when management is responsible for the problem? Why, in other words, get rid of the people busting their humps to do it right? (And here we'll note, Because the company can't afford them ... and this is fair. But to suggest that the company owes these employees nothing is shortsighted on the part of the Dain representative. Without them, there is no company.)These people don't just work for Boeing. If boeing collapses because they can no longer afford to pay their employees, then their suppliers have a lessened demand, and then the suppliers' suppliers-a ripple effect.Given how much companies like Boeing spend trying to get the law to allow them to occupy their current positions (there are antitrust issues at stake whenever Boeing makes an acquisition), if the company collapses, we might wonder at why the company owes its employees who make it great nothing, yet the decision-making management walks out with a phat golden parachute. Boeing management, for instance, is responsible for this situation. Its dedication to the shareholders, as noted by the Dain representative, is part of its problem.

Investors don't care about jobs, they care about profit. This sounds wonderful in its capitalist sense. But why are they investing? Is the whole result of human suffering from unstable economy and stress about working conditions ... imagine all of those considerations that go into politics and law and commerce, or into any company like Boeing ....

Is it all really about the abstraction of a piece of paper? A dollar is only worth a dollar because you choose to spend it and I, as a proprietor, choose to accept it. Stoners frequently joke amongst themselves about the "pot standard", in which America's 30 million stoners stop using cash and start trading quantities of the sweet leaf. Can you imagine walking into a store and having your five-dollar bill rejected because it wasn't valid currency?

My company, an insurance company, talks a lot about commitment, community, strength of solidarity, and so forth, when recruiting employees or undertaking important projects. Yet when you get right down to it, all of that psychology they bestow onto their employees becomes an empty promise--a lie--whenever the managers screw up. We're a family? Crap. We're a community? Crap. Sure, we got rid of the executives in order to justify the workforce layoffs, but we mustn't forget that it's the investors who still run the company, and all they're looking for is more of the same.

Boeing is like that, too. I have friends at Boeing who hear the company extolling this or that virtue: commitment, security ... why does any company care about its employees five-year learning plans? So the employee can take the company's suggestion, pay to educate themselves (some help from the company), work essentially two jobs (as any working student/parent can tell you) and then be laid off because the guy who told you all about the wonderful community of the company screwed up?

But in the end, it's just that the letter writer's point made me chuckle. If the point of something in capitalism is to reduce human beings to business assets, though, perhaps capitalism itself is the problem.

In the meantime, I point to Counterbalance's perspective: It's what people do with those ideas.

But this seems to be what people do with capitalism: hurt each other for money.

What does that speak in light of the letter writer's dictionary?

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

I started to reply to some of your observations and questions but realized that the best way to get a truly comprehensive answer to all that you're pondering is, again, to read the two Rand books I mentioned.

I was in my thirties before I read Rand, and can't imagine trying to do that in my teenage years. If you're around 28 now, with such an obviously broad knowledge of these matters, I honestly believe you would find Rand's works not only interesting but enlightening. Depending upon your style of reading, you might need to be a little patient. Both are long, but absolutely brimming with mind-opening ideas. (Stories are damn good, too.)

At any rate, answers or explanations for everything you've questioned here may be found in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. The former, as Rand puts it, is an overture to the latter.

Mind, I don't propose that you will instantly agree with her philosophy. (Objectivism) If some of these ideas are totally new to you, they may want to sit on the back shelf in your brain for awhile. Or not. But as far as understanding why "management" or company owners behave as they do, (when they aren't actually being irrational and purely greedy) these works hold the key to a truly better understanding.

(And no, I'm not being paid to say this. :) )

~~~~

Enjoyed the exchange and if you do read these books, let me know! I'm curious to hear whatcha think.


Counterbalance

I find nothing controversial about a statement that capitalism=greed. I find it rather correct. All the employees that allegedly "make" a company are not in it for the company but for the paycheck. They only work hard because if they didn't someone else would have their job. If they were offered a pot of gold on a golden parachute, they would forsake the company and their compatriots in a nanosecond.

This, of course, is a generality. There are always exceptions, especially creative types holding creative jobs (I'm one of those lucky ones.) But for most work is not at the top of the list when it comes to fun pastimes. And the society's backbone are not the creative types (even though their ideas help drive it) -- but the grunts who actually lay the roads and build the bridges.

I think it's most correct to fundamentally assume that people are lazy and greedy. It rings true from an evolutionary perspective, and it certainly rings true according to my own insight. Thus, most people will not do anything unless they are properly motivated -- and greed is the most powerful motivator. Capitalism is merely this doctrine institutionalized into a social contract.

Granted, let loose capitalism is vastly destructive both to the environment and the society. That is why it must always be balanced by a complementary social contract that emphasizes fair chance and safety nets. I.e. socialism. The trick is to balance the two in such a way that one does not completely choke the other. An even tougher trick is to find an optimal balance where each is the widest spread and interferes with the other the least.

Rarely will you find a Platonic/Marxist (for those lurking I'm not a communist, I'm a Marxist-big difference) so in favor of capitalism as I am. In this case, I don't think it was the managers who screwed up. As much as I hate the people I work for, they're not always responsible... in this case, and I imagine that it is because of the reduced air travel and all that jazz. NO ONE could have forseen the drop off in air travel a year ago... and I can bet that there were alot of supervisors and "white collar" people who lost their jobs. In fact, in general, it is the middle management that gets cleared out when a company does layoffs, as well as production.

And you are right, I'm a mercenary bastard... if I got an offer at another company for an extra $1000 a year, I'd be out of this job faster than an olympic runner

Boeing can't pay people to do nothing, and I agree, it is cut throat. I grapple with the morality of capitalism all of the time. For a while, I rationalized that "if you want to make an omlette, you have to break a few eggs" and, the US has been building the biggest omlette the world has ever seen... of course, now that I'm older, I've realized that philosophy isn't a matter of quotes and cliches.

I think that alot of people have a problem with capitalism because they have a HUGE lack of perspective on the matter. The media has, for the most part, encouraged a huge provinciality upon the american people. Even in our borders to our south, you can see how other systems have affected the people. Hell, our "poverty line" is still 10x what most people in other countries make.

In all fairness, and I have little to back me up at the moment, Capitalism has lost it's way. Originally it was production based. I think after the inception of incorporation and public trading it became a bit more profit driven.

If this seems rambling, I'm not really sure what your counterargument is... which I'm sure is a failing on my part.

Capitalism is simply an economic model. It's not geared towards or away from greed. Granted, greedy people can cynically manipulate the system to make lots of money, but if you're thinking that communism is any better, don't check Stalin's bank accounts. (As a side note, you have to admire the fact that while every communist model castro had has fallen, and that their trade is in the shit-hole for the next 50 years, Cuba still hasn't revolted. I find it amazing). Any system can be, and will be, manipulated by the greedy.

Also, the definition (as shown above) is oversimplified. Capitalism is a complex system of supply and demand for wants and needs of a population. (and even that is a oversimplification). Greed is the self-destructive desire for nothing but money. I think this shows the differences? I'll be happy to expand any of my above arguments when I know which you disagree with :)

Might not there be a need for a new term and model: Corperatism, rather than Capitalism?

Curious.

Not yet. There was a word for the older style... the name escapes me at the moment... I'll have to look it up, but I think it was physical capitalism or something... really, this is just a transition phase into corporate feudalism.

Mobile/PDA | Books | Onion Merchandise & Subscriptions | National Distribution Media Kit | Employment | Copyright





NEW YORK—MCI-WorldCom and Bank One-Chase Manhattan merged in a blockbuster $112 billion deal Monday, forming the world's largest telecommunications/banking company and reducing the number of existing corporations to six.


Above: MCI-WorldCom CEO Donald Cosgrove (left) and Bank One-Chase Manhattan CEO Walter Courson celebrate their companies' historic $112 billion merger.
"This is an exciting move for both companies," said Donald Cosgrove, CEO of MCI-WorldCom, whose subsidiaries include SBC-Ameritech, Bell Atlantic-NYNEX and McDonnell Douglas. "As a result of this historic merger, we should be in much better position to consolidate vast amounts of wealth and power in the coming years."

The other five remaining corporations are Daimler-Chrysler, Monsanto-American Home Products, Shearson-Lehman-Chemical-Citicorp-Travelers Group, Paramount-Viacom-ABC-Disney, and Lockheed-Northrop-Boeing-Pepsico.

According to Forbes managing editor Russell Belanger, at the current rate of mergers, there will be only one corporation in the world by 2000.

"The six remaining corporations have shown great interest in merging with each other," Belanger said. "Clearly, the stage is being set for the long-discussed creation of UniCorp, a $92 trillion corporation that produces every product on earth, from canned yams to basketballs to poison gas."

Belanger said mergers are desirable because they give corporations "synergy," enabling them to better sell their products. "Take Paramount-Viacom-ABC-Disney, for example," he said. "Disney makes the movie, Joel Siegel of Paramount-owned ABC-TV gives the movie a rave review, and Disney subsidiaries Blockbuster and McDonald's promote the video release of the movie in their respective stores with mail-in rebates and Happy Meal action figures. It's a win-win scenario."

Bill Clinton, chief executive of U.S. Government, a division of MCI-WorldCom, praised Monday's merger as "an excellent move."

A spokesperson for the newly formed Bank One-Chase Manhattan-MCI-WorldCom said the company plans to cut 92,000 jobs this month.



© Copyright 2001 Onion, Inc., All rights reserved. http://www.theonion.com/
Media Kit | Employment | Copyright
© Copyright 2001 Onion, Inc., All rights reserved. Masthead | Contact Information | Privacy Policy

*Originally posted by Counterbalance
away from anything that demands I live my life and direct all of my efforts toward the good of anything other than myself.*

Where tiassa was quoting something about greed, you're proclaiming the ultimate selfishness.
Your name doesn't fit.
You're anything but counterbalance.
You are pure selfishness.

*the best way to get a truly comprehensive answer to all that you're pondering is, again, to read the two Rand books I mentioned. *

Information from books?
As I recall you are against a book in the religion forum.

*Originally posted by Bambi
That is why it must always be balanced by a complementary social contract that emphasizes fair chance and safety nets. I.e. socialism. The trick is to balance the two in such a way that one does not completely choke the other. An even tougher trick is to find an optimal balance where each is the widest spread and interferes with the other the least.*

Why is it that socialists don't become socialists until they've got a fairly "good" (lucrative and/or creative) job?
Capitalism seems fine while you're climbing, but when you're in a position to lose something, socialism seems like a good way to keep it.

*Originally posted by Riomacleod
I've realized that philosophy isn't a matter of quotes and cliches. *

How did you come to that realization, when it IS a matter of quotes and cliches, plus speculation, of course?

*Cuba still hasn't revolted. I find it amazing*

They're so broke, they can't even afford to revolt.

Tony1:

3 points:

Socialism is a bad way to keep money. However, preaching socialism is a good way to make rich people feel bad and give you money. If I'm for anything, I'm for keeping money away from the people who don't deserve it. I know more poor people who think that socialism is a good idea than the people who kicked their asses to get to where they are. I imagine that your information comes from watching the inherited rich and actors who are all in favor of such programs.

I came to that realization as I began to really study philosophy. Serious philosophers do bring in and reference other books, I'll admit, but philosophy in general is more than that.

Finally, there is no such thing as "too poor to revolt" the bolshevik (sp?) revolution was the poorest of the poor. The French Revolution was much of the same.

I'm no politician but it's a shame that someone has to suffer in ANY political system. Personally, majority rules is a bad way to run a society.













































































boo

Give a hungry person some food and they call you a saint. Ask why he is hungry and they call you a communist.

I hate to say this, but there were poor people in every single economic structure. I think that the difference in capitalism is that in most systems EVERYONE is poor, except for a few of the very rich. So it looks like poor is normal. However in capitalism, lots of people can make lots of money. Therefore the people who are really in need are more obvious. So, really, we're getting better. Let's continue this trend.

I hate to say this, but there were poor people in every single economic structure.I agree, but the problem with capitalism is twofold in this respect. First, it requires a poor laboring class to support the consumer lifestyle necessary to maintain such economic growth as the United States has seen. Secondly, as the quote cited in the topic post notes, there is no obligation to improve on this condition. Certes, it's getting better, but by this economic theory, stopping to worry about how to create even less poor people is bad for business; and, as we see, what's good or bad for business is all that matters to the capitalists.

How is a shrinking body of working poor bad for business? Ask any capitalist: Why isn't everyone paid a living wage for their labor?

Because it would ruin the consumer market, damage currency value, and slow economic growth.

It isn't that we're not doing well, but that we now have license to cease seeking to do better as a society while we pursue the betterment of our own capital comforts.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I agree, but the problem with capitalism is twofold in this respect. First, it requires a poor laboring class to support the consumer lifestyle necessary to maintain such economic growth as the United States has seen. Secondly, as the quote cited in the topic post notes, there is no obligation to improve on this condition. Certes, it's getting better, but by this economic theory, stopping to worry about how to create even less poor people is bad for business; and, as we see, what's good or bad for business is all that matters to the capitalists....

It isn't that we're not doing well, but that we now have license to cease seeking to do better as a society while we pursue the betterment of our own capital comforts.

~~~

tiassa,

The quote above demonstrates (in my view) where a lot of people misunderstand capitalism. We are a society of individuals, (which you've previously acknowledged). Yet, capitalism makes no distinction about who will succeed and becomes wealthy, or who won't. This is because it is a system that will work for those individuals who are willing to work within the system. It's also a system that can work for the majority of individuals, but the majority does not necessarily make the best use of it. When this is the case, there are usually to be found any number of reasons why they don't; reasons other than that of capitalism standing in their way.

Throughout man's history people have complained that the poor are disadvantaged by a variety of causes, and there is always a group crying out against the current politico-economical system--whatever it may be. (We are never all happy at the same time, ya know?) In some cases, the poor actually have been treated badly, cheated, you-name-it. In some case, large businesses have sought to be monster monopolies--with no regard for what their actions might do to the very capitalistic system that helped them to succeed--or to those other businesses (& consumers) they need in order to have healthy competition. OR... To other countries, societies, cultures, market systems... --But this is true of man in general. Some of us don't have a clue about what we do, or why we do it; some know perfectly well what they're up to. In general, we just get out there and do-it-the-hell anyway!

"Society" needs fixin;' mankind needs to abandon the tendency to embrace irrationality which is both anti-individual AND anti-society. So, what inspires irrational greed? 'Cause it only takes one unenlightened CEO, one twisted market director, to taint any scenario; to abuse any system.

Ditching Capitalism is not the way to go. Saving Capitalism is a much better idea, imo. I don't want either to be done, however, at the expense of the individual worker or entrepreneur.

Of all the political/economical systems humans have come up with so far, Capitalism gives a willing worker the best chance of success--without him having to take alms from his brother's earnings. And that, primarily, is the key: A system wherein fewer are living off of what they have not earned.

Don't mistake me. There is plenty of room for improvement. People have cried "discrimination!" and pushed through asinine, destructive legislation. The democrats have their way one season, the republicans the next, short-sighted corporations have muscled their way into the bully pulpit... But it is too, too easy for individual "rights" to disappear once we lose sight of why these systems came into being in the first place. Once those are gone, it won't matter any longer. We will already have become a communist nation. For me, (a very rational being :) ) communism is unacceptable.

To solve any problem we need to find the true root of it. Capitalism isn't our main problem or the root of it. It's just another tool; another weapon that's being misused.

~~~

Counterbalance

Counterbalance

It isn't a matter of bringing about a Communist Revolution. Just a couple quick notes; I'll give more comment when I've got it ....Ditching Capitalism is not the way to goI agree entirely. Part of it is that we seem to isolate Capitalism as an academic concept, and never look at how it interacts with the people who live it. In that sense, it's like the notion of trickle-down. Sure we created a lot of new wealth, and we created new millionaires, but the reality is that there's a wider gap now 'twixt the American haves and have-nots. It isn't that the idea is wrong, but that its results are too narrow because we continue to think of Capitalism as a pure idea.

We could throw religion in there: Weber did. In that sense, we can look at Capitalism contrasted against any number of religions and see conflicts arise between the presupposed morality and the necessities of economy. For instance, I know a good many Christians whose major failing is lucre. I've known a good many socialistic Wiccans as well, and also a fair number of waer-loga whose primary failing as a witch was their greed. It is this presupposed morality that compels us to not adopt Spartan values toward human life, though strangely the greatest exploiter of that presupposed morality--Communism--couldn't function harmoniously with religions.

But we are taught to have compassion toward the poor: this is not Capitalist. We are taught to seek equality in opportunity and before the law: this is not Capitalist. Where Capitalism allows us to fail is when we prescribe it in order to exploit the presupposed morality: this is Capitalist. To exploit the extant conditions toward personal gain is the process of a Capitalist. Among the wisest of Marx's observations of Capitalism is its lack of foresight: if you pass a law that says to hang the Capitalists, they will still sell you the rope.

In an austere environment where Capitalism remains solitary we will not necessarily learn to make Capitalism work harmoniously with our presupposed morality. Herein lies a reason to understand the nature of the presuppositions which form the moral base: we can either rewrite the morality or readjust our perceptions of the Capitalist idea to meet that greater morality. To undertake the rewriting of morality raises the possibility of Capitalism becoming so morally justified that we cut each others' throats in search of supremacy. To undertake the readjustment of the Capitalist idea creates the potential to build a Capitalist-centered idea that works toward the greater future of society, and thus the perpetuity of the human endeavor. The purpose of "winning" the "competition" is not to self-destruct.

I don't see it as submitting to a state identity or a cultural identity in conformity. Rather, I propose that Captialism must, at some point, undertake the issue of what it's for. If it is an economic system for the benefit of humankind, then we must make it work to humanity's benefit truly instead of when its convenient to do so. If Capitalism is a purpose for life, then we must throw off all notions of familial beneficience, and spend the rest of our lives waiting to stick the knife into the next guy. It's all a matter of how far we want to go with the idea, and why we want to go there. For me, (a very rational being ) communism is unacceptable. One of my favorite points about the unacceptabillity of Communism is that we in the US will accept it under a different label. What is objectionable about the state handling your medical expenses? Yet you'll entrust your employer to do so while counting their own pennies to make sure they won't spend too much. Your education? What of corporations who offer college assistance within a specific range of majors? (Your education no longer becomes a benefit but a commodity traded.) Retirement? Again, we'll entrust our employers, who, as noted in the Dain-Rauscher quote in the topic post, ought to have concern only for the shareholders and the bottom-line, and not toward the posterity of their employees. We live according to some communistic principles, we just disguise them as capitalistic. Public education? Social Security? (Work with it, I know SS is a bloody mess, but it's the principle we're after here ....)

No American wants to trade the Bill of Rights for the Hammer and Sickle, but we've recognized the benefit of seeing things in terms larger than ourselves. Even if our communitarian ideas are motivated by greed, we are at least putting that greed to work for the benefit of the human endeavor. The way I see it, we're all in this together, and there's no reason to go throwing everyone else overboard just to get a suntan.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Excellent, tiassa!

Thanks for the expansion. I now understand more of where you're coming from. I'll give this a couple more read-overs and get back to you as time allows. (over the weekend hopefully)

~~~

Counterbalance

Mornin’ tiassa,


This is a long one. May have to post it half-n-half.


It isn't a matter of bringing about a Communist Revolution.

Good! “’Cause if ya go hanging around with Chairman Mao, ya ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow...” ~The Beatles~

Couldn’t resist! ;)

~~~


“Ditching Capitalism is not the way to go.’

I agree entirely. Part of it is that we seem to isolate Capitalism as an academic concept, and never look at how it interacts with the people who live it ... It isn't that the idea is wrong, but that its results are too narrow because we continue to think of Capitalism as a pure idea....

We could throw religion in there: Weber did. In that sense, we can look at Capitalism contrasted against any number of religions and see conflicts arise between the presupposed morality and the necessities of economy. For instance, I know a good many Christians whose major failing is lucre. I've known a good many socialistic Wiccans as well, and also a fair number of waer-loga whose primary failing as a witch was their greed. It is this presupposed morality that compels us to not adopt Spartan values toward human life, though strangely the greatest exploiter of that presupposed morality--Communism--couldn't function harmoniously with religions.


Okay, tiassa, we agree that ditching Capitalism isn’t the way to go, and that we need to look deeper at how ‘Capitalism interacts with the people who live it.’ After that we may be going down different pathways. I’ll work my way through this in sections.

I think we have been watching Capitalism’s progress, and that many have done so with pre-conceived ideas--or with a presupposed (and accepted) morality influencing the observers’ evaluations. As with any society-related issue, there are a plethora of books, polls and studies providing data which will support every kind of notion, including any for or against Capitalism.

A couple of points here: Since the days of the Industrial Revolution, the population of our nation has grown considerably. How accurate have our censuses been? How accurate are they now? How accurate are the statistical methods used to determine the figures that would suggest the “wider gap?” How are we defining “poor.” How well are we filtering out the “slant” factor?

When I look around I see gaps, but I see a bigger difference in how people from the “poor side of town” (or cities) are living now compared to how they were living forty + years ago. I can recall a time when the poor family wouldn’t even think of shopping at the equivalent of a Dollar General Store--much less a Wal*Mart ...when a good portion of their food came from their own gardens, neighbors/family, charities--or they simply didn‘t eat. ...a time when my own parents were making significant and repeated efforts to teach my siblings and me to understand the unmistakable gap (then) between how we lived and how they, the poor, lived, and we weren’t a wealthy family.

There are still gaps, granted, but I don’t buy wholesale into the idea that the gaps are truly greater now. Or that there is the same sort of hard-drawn line between the poor and the rich. I do agree that there are “haves” and “have nots.” I think this is (and will remain) the norm for our species for some time to come.

But let’s look at this some more because you‘ve compared Capitalism to a religion; to an institution that lacks the proper morality. (or that’s how it comes across to me) And I’m not entirely sure what kind of morality you’re referring to as you‘re throwing in both religion and greed--many directions to go in with either. Let’s start with greed.

Money (or lucre) is used properly when it is used to assign value to the efforts an individual makes when (s)he produces/creates. In this sense, it’s a precious symbol according to Ayn Rand. Yet for a majority of consumers and producers money doesn’t represent that at all. Those who don’t understand the above definition of money are prone to operate with ‘anti-man’ greed as part, if not all, of their motivation for acquisition. Some, unfortunately, have already accepted it as a goal of sorts. They will claim that man is greedy; that it is his nature to be a glutton: “Hey, whatever it is man is suppose to want, (wealth, fame, sex appeal...) we want more of it than the other guy’s got.“

Nevertheless...

The science of political economy is relatively young. In the nineteenth century Kantian ideology was waning and ‘political economy’ (as it came into being) more or less adopted the basic principles, or morality, of collectivism. The overall accepted goal was to find the best way to share the available resources for the common good. Most “Capitalists” went along with this. By and large it seemed the moral thing to do. And yet, what kind of morality was this? The morality of altruism.

But we are taught to have compassion toward the poor: this is not Capitalist.

No, this is altruistic. And altruism and Capitalism are dipolar.

We are taught to seek equality in opportunity and before the law: this is not Capitalist.

Here, I disagree somewhat. I think we have more often been taught that we are owed equal opportunity; that we come into this world being owed such, and laws have been enacted in a “collective” sort of effort to assure that we either got a fair shot at it, or in some cases, that we got it whether we deserved it or not. Much of this is definitely at odds with Capitalism.

“Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.” Ayn Rand

But Capitalism does not guarantee that one will get the opportunity one seeks. And after all, what is sought may not be a rational goal.

Capitalism does offer the best chance of success for those who seek opportunity in a rational manner. It is irrational to believe or to assert that we are all capable of producing, creating, inventing the same caliber or quality or even quantity of anything. We are not. We are born with a handful of basic individual rights by virtue of the fact that we come into existence as human beings. But as to ability and as to what we each deserve in the way of opportunities or recompense, we are not born equal. We do not die equal. Capitalism does work in favor of diversity, however.

So it seems that we do agree that Capitalism does not promise equality. And we still have more to go on the morality issue.

Where Capitalism allows us to fail is when we prescribe it in order to exploit the presupposed morality: this is Capitalist. To exploit the extant conditions toward personal gain is the process of a Capitalist. Among the wisest of Marx's observations of Capitalism is its lack of foresight: if you pass a law that says to hang the Capitalists, they will still sell you the rope.

About the rope? A bittersweet kind of truth.

Allows us to fail?

Why is Capitalism allowed such a position of authority or power over our choices? (and btw...not directing any hostility here--merely questions for the sake of the general discussion) Where is our individual responsibility to use the tool wisely? Where is that morality? Who has labeled a Capitalist as one who “exploits” the presupposed morality? I ask because according to Ayn Rand, a true Capitalist would exploit the morality that is proper to Capitalism--which is the same morality that is proper to Man. And personally, I have no problem with the word “exploit,” but it can be interpreted in two ways: to utilize... or to take improper advantage of.

A true Capitalist is not the true enemy--and I will add that, as it is with all things, a true Capitalist of today will have evolved a bit from Rand’s initial concept. This individual doesn‘t think in terms of “what I do is for the common good, even though when I do it for the sake of self, I am, in the long run, contributing to the upkeep of a proper morality and this will or can contribute to the common good in a broader sense.” A true Capitalist would keep the priorities straight and would do so by adhering to a rational, pro-individual philosophy--or morality. There is no ’anti-man’ greed inherent in such a philosophy. It may sound kinda complex or contradictory at a first encounter, but the rationality becomes clear after a closer inspection.

Capitalism, in my view, is an economic system that lacks the proper--or properly defined--morality. (Most people don’t even think in terms of there being a need to adopt or to accept an accompanying philosophy.) This lack comes about because of the long-standing influence of religion over the entire world. For at the core of any religion you will find a creed or code or morality that is in many ways identical to that found in the doctrines of socialism or communism. And in a nutshell, that is a morality which asserts that society should comes first, and that an individual should be his brothers’ keepers--financially, spiritually, ethically... you-name-it.

Capitalism--from its very roots--is at odds with this kind of ideology, so that over the years as people have tried (usually unknowingly) to force Capitalism and “society-first” premises to an unholy altar, we’ve had nothing but chaos and/or mixed results at best. To come as far as we have, which is much farther, historically, than other political-economical systems, has required a lot more “blood, sweat, & tears” than was ever strictly necessary--but this is what happens when you mix oil and water. The two will always separate into what they are unless you keep stirring them up. Tiassa, it sounds to me like you’re tired of stirring. Hey... I don’t blame you. Futility sucks.

In an austere environment where Capitalism remains solitary we will not necessarily learn to make Capitalism work harmoniously with our presupposed morality. Herein lies a reason to understand the nature of the presuppositions which form the moral base: we can either rewrite the morality or readjust our perceptions of the Capitalist idea to meet that greater morality. To undertake the rewriting of morality raises the possibility of Capitalism becoming so morally justified that we cut each others' throats in search of supremacy. To undertake the readjustment of the Capitalist idea creates the potential to build a Capitalist-centered idea that works toward the greater future of society, and thus the perpetuity of the human endeavor. The purpose of "winning" the "competition" is not to self-destruct.

And so this now sounds like we are back on the same or a similar page. To rewrite the morality? We never actually wrote one to start with. Rand’s objectivism is the closest thing we have to it--and while it is pretty close, it’s still too hard for a religion-strapped world to take. Our constitution has some good premises, but it’s been tinkered with-- over- and under-interpreted, ignored, maligned...

With the proper tenets (something much akin to objectivism‘s) linked to Capitalism, cutting one another’s throats would be clearly out of line and not predictable once the newlyweds were given a chance to prove their compatibility. We have no adequate working models, so for the moment we can only hypothesize. Man has been labeled as a hopeless, greedy, even demon-controlled (roll-of-eyes) creature for so long, that society simply cannot comprehend anything different. Man deserves a proper chance to live up to his/her potential. (Not promising it would be pretty to watch in the initial stages, but neither is watching the tiresome, day to day ‘workings’ of religion.)

True, we would seek various types of ‘supremacy’ in that we would continually seek to achieve and prosper. And “supremacy” is another word that carries a not necessarily appropriate connotation of negativism. But the system itself when allowed to work free of the machinations of ’anti-man’ supporters (or of their poorly-disguised moralities) is one in which all who are willing to do what it takes to succeed--meaning, ultimately, to educate and dedicate themselves to a rationality appropriate for an individual living in a world full of individuals-- do/will have that in which they may make such a noble attempt.

What I’ve written above is similar to your second option with an added twist: “the purpose of winning the competition is not to self-destruct,” (and so I add) ...but is to keep an ongoing balance that will (as a likely by-product) contribute to a greater future of society by virtue of it’s primary objective which is actually the greater future of the individual.

I don't see it as submitting to a state identity or a cultural identity in conformity. Rather, I propose that Captialism must, at some point, undertake the issue of what it's for. If it is an economic system for the benefit of humankind, then we must make it work to humanity's benefit truly instead of when its convenient to do so. If Capitalism is a purpose for life, then we must throw off all notions of familial beneficience, and spend the rest of our lives waiting to stick the knife into the next guy. It's all a matter of how far we want to go with the idea, and why we want to go there.

I appreciate the emphases you’ve made here. However, as I’ve already written, the proper “identity” for Capitalism is not one for Humankind. Not primarily. Not initially. Not in its gut. Granted, at present, it is an economic system without a “soul.“ --or one with a beleaguered soul. However, there cannot be a soul-mind dichotomy and there also be a rational anything. America and its political-economical system needs an anchoring philosophy that is not chained to a variety of faith-based ideologies. It is not proper however to make such a marriage happen by any means of force. It IS proper to reason with American Individuals in order that they may come to a same conclusion.

Capitalism needs an accompanying philosophy that clearly explains why an individual must work, earn, achieve, compete for his/her own sake. On an individual basis, one might wish to donate time, money, or effort to others or others’ efforts for various value-based reasons, but such would always be secondary. And to say secondary is not to say it isn’t likely to happen that way. And it is irrational to take the true ’cut throat’ way, or to do anything that calls into question an individual’s true motives, or to do anything that will undermine the integrity of the self OR the system that protects and promotes the survival of a community of selves.


One of my favorite points about the unacceptabillity of Communism is that we in the US will accept it under a different label. What is objectionable about the state handling your medical expenses? Yet you'll entrust your employer to do so while counting their own pennies to make sure they won't spend too much. Your education? What of corporations who offer college assistance within a specific range of majors? (Your education no longer becomes a benefit but a commodity traded.) Retirement? Again, we'll entrust our employers, who, as noted in the Dain-Rauscher quote in the topic post, ought to have concern only for the shareholders and the bottom-line, and not toward the posterity of their employees. We live according to some communistic principles, we just disguise them as capitalistic. Public education? Social Security? (Work with it, I know SS is a bloody mess, but it's the principle we're after here ....)

You make an excellent point here. American Individuals’ dependency upon the state or an employer to provide these things is scarcely removed from the serf’s dependency on the landowner of old. In some respects, however, those who are less able to produce/create will always be dependent on the those with more ability, though I don’t think the degree to which we’ve become dependent in these times is at all appropriate.

We are but one species on this planet, and we have supposedly evolved into one with the highest capability to reason--that we know of so far. Yet, it IS a “survival of the fittest” world in which we humans live. It is our nature. Factor in aberrant (irrational) behavior caused by any number of things, and we will always have those who behave irrationally; who will expect what is not theirs to expect; who will refuse to make appropriate efforts; or to discern what is appropriate to value...etc...and who will try to throw sticks into the spinning bicycle wheel of progress.

Yes. It’s a bloody mess. Ignorance and fear have stunted Man and Mankind.

No American wants to trade the Bill of Rights for the Hammer and Sickle, but we've recognized the benefit of seeing things in terms larger than ourselves. Even if our communitarian ideas are motivated by greed, we are at least putting that greed to work for the benefit of the human endeavor. The way I see it, we're all in this together, and there's no reason to go throwing everyone else overboard just to get a suntan.

The way I and some others see it, the key to ‘benefits for all’ is to achieve a proper focus on the self, first and foremost. A system/philosophy that supports rational success of rational individuals should motivate more to want to work within and among the same. It’s another win-win kind of thing. There is a larger picture to see, and much of import to discern, but how we look at it, and the types of prejudicial viewing lenses we use...

Sometimes we make things waaaaaay more difficult than they need to be. History has spoken eloquently and repeatedly about the folly of accepting that which simply is not acceptable or rational for man. --For A man, and not for mankind.

But in the end we have to deal with reality; with the here-n-now. Although here in sciforums you and I seem to look at this similarly, we may not actually be able to agree totally, and this is what will (and does) happen in the larger world, too. So, I don’t expect to see Capitalism or Capitalists undergoing any sweeping changes in the near future, nor do I think it would be healthy for Capitalism to do so because of the kinds of individuals and societies that work within (and around) the system currently. The world today could not withstand this kind of upset. The world isn’t ready yet.

And as with religion, I don’t expect to see these issues resolved within my lifetime, though I never rule out a hope that enlightenment will come sooner rather than later, even if it comes in baby steps. It’s not “my cross to bear” for I haven’t taken on the world’s dilemmas to solve, but I don’t mind to sweep clean the road ahead for all every now and then.

Enjoyed the exchange, tiassa, and I expect I’ll enjoy reading anything you might offer in reply. I do have to reiterate however that my reasons for visiting sciforums is not because I actively seek debate, or because I have a driving passion to see changes come about in society. If anything I’ve offered here is intriguing to you, I would again suggest that you give Rand another try. I can’t be certain, but I think a lot of her ideas may be right in line with what you’re envisioning.

my sincere thanks for sharing,

Counterbalance

I take issue with people instantly rearing the ghost of Stalinism whenever socialism is mentioned. And contrary to seemingly popular belief, socialism and capitalism are not diametrically opposed or totally incompatible.

Without social safety nets capitalism results in pollution, sweatshops, natural resource decimation, unworkable public facility organization and infrastructure, and vast social inequalities. Capitalism definitely needs to be counterbalanced by environmental laws, labor laws, antitrust laws, civic long-term planning and coordinating bodies, and yes, anti-bribe laws when it comes to political spending (in the latter case, unbridled capitalism actually poses a threat to the very idea of democracy.) Equally importantly, all those laws must actually be enforced.

When people point out the prosperity of the West while crediting it to capitalism, they forget to factor in that the West is literally feeding on the rest of the world. As it stands, the vast majority of humans are devastatingly poor. However, the available resources of our planet are unlikely to be sufficient to bring them up to the same standard of living as the top western nations of today -- at least not without major technological change. Yet such a change can only be anticipated and prepared by long-term, far-sighted social programs. Capitalist institutions, on the other hand, are entirely too focused on the near term and typically on a very limited slice of the world's complexity.

Another area where socialism definitely comes in, is equal opportunity. And I'm not talking about "affirmative action" of any traditional sort. What I'm saying is that eventually free societies might want to respect one of their most fundamental (if often non-binding legally) premises: that all individuals are born equal. As it stands, simply being born into a poor family severely hampers one's chances of success compared to rich-family children. That is fundamentally unfair. At least up to adulthood (when personal decisions and fiscal autonomy kick in), even the poorest of the poor must be given a sporting if not equal chance when compared to the rich.

While one marvels at the American success, one also has to realize that in some ways it is a failure. Americans are the most overworked people among all industrialized nations. Compared to the rest of the Western world, Americans have no life despite their impressive fiscal standing. America is a nation of workaholics (whether voluntary or not), and it is getting worse all the time. Eventually, social action will have to kick in to reverse this unwelcome trend -- or we'll end up working ourselves to death. There is more to quality of life than mere possessions, and the overall quality of life in America is declining.

With respect to the poor in America, one has to note that the current poverty line is something like 20 years old, while the current percentage of the poor in the population is actually higher than 20 years ago. That means due to inflation today's poor are much poorer than the poor of the 1970s. And that is despite the massive recent economic boom. So much for the trickle-down effect.

When one talks of opportunity and the failure of individuals to pursue it, one glosses over the many showstoppers in that overly simplistic depiction. In the increasingly technological and globalized economy, it becomes increasingly difficult for some trailer park Joe to start and grow a successful business when he can't even so much as read and write at a fourth-grade level. His children (and likely there'll be many of them) won't have much of a better chance. And this is even before globalization truly kicks in and business goes truly international and forsakes expensive Western labor in favor of a cheap (nearly free!) third-world workforce. This will tend to deplete the western countries of manual jobs, and will further disadvantage the poor segments that are ill-equipped to succeed in a service/high-tech economy. Without a socialist framework to level the playing field opportunity-wise, the poor segment of the population is destined to remain poor and even to grow as it had over the last couple of decades.

There are other benefits to socialist policies. For example, every time we rely on business for our basic needs and services, we end up paying 200% of the cost (after all, the business is geared toward making money.) That's one reason why American medical care, for example, is so exhorbitantly expensive. One could argue that a government-driven medical care system would be mired in bureacracy and inefficiency, in addition to being sluggish when responding to technological advances. That, however, depends on the actual architecture and modus operandi of any such system. Perhaps a government/business hybrid could both retain the advantages of private health care and keep the price of care reasonable. As it stands, however, Americans are among the most deprived in the western world when it comes to health care. In most other western countries, for example, people get hospitalized for free until they are healthy enough to leave; in America, hospital care is prohibitively expensive and people are routinely thrown out of hospitals to recuperate at home after what most other western countries would consider inadequately short stays. In a purely capitalist medical establishment, patients are treated as business customers instead of people who need help and cannot necessarily afford it. In the current system, people pay 200% for the cost of services, plus an extra 200% on top of that to their health insurance company (which, after all, must make profit too.) If instead people paid as much money in taxes to the government as they spend on private health care, with the government then distributing the money to those who actually need care and using more cost-efficient care providers, a much better standard of care would be possible.

Another demonstrable disaster in the making is the nightmarish emergent combination of suburbia and the car culture. This is arguably purely a product of market forces -- but it is responsible for huge areas of land being sacrificed to roadways, and nevertheless ever-present and ever-growing congestion. Concomitant are pollution, road maintenance, expansion and policing expenses, and people spending increasing hours stuck or crawling along to/from work. People don't walk as much any more, as even a minor shopping trip involves driving to the nearest suburban mall 5 miles away; as a result we have the infamous obesity epidemic. There's been a decimation of urban high culture; the replacement apparently is MTV and the couch. Yet it didn't have to turn out this way. Instead of now facing the headache of fixing the unfixable problems, the society could have planned its growth and urban architecture a little better. This is a prime example of how long-term, far-sighted social policy could be superior to the short-sighted, fix-it-when-it-breaks capitalist mentality.

This post is already too long, so I'll wrap it up. The last thing I want to emphasize is that despite the fact that socialism has the potential to correct for the failures of capitalism, the two are not mutually exclusive. They can coexist and be balanced for optimal quality-of-life effect. In fact modern America has already come quite a way toward such a balance when compared to the old, laissez-faire capitalism of the nineteenth century. And people should stop denying the fact that U.S. is right now, already, a mildly socialist country. But the point is that more could be done -- and should be done, for all our sakes.

Bambi:

I beg to differ. You are confusing Capitalism with Plutacracy which have as much to do with each other as Socialism has to do with Totalitarianism.

The Wall Street Journal has copies of ALL their newspapers back to the mid 1800's I suggest you READ them, and you'll find that the social abuses you are decrying are all found to be a result of "special" status given to the owners to ignore skirt, abuse labour laws, OR that labour laws were passed to prevent such. The abuses you are decrying come from legislation allowing it. The monopoly the utilities currently enjoy would be another example of legislated monopolies abusing their status. It was supposed to 'simplify' things and got out of hand.

Pullman OH EXISTS because Pullman built it. He abused his workers. They sturck for higher wages and LOWER prices in his company stores, and ultimately BURNT his company town to the ground. Things got better when Pullman went bankrupt and Carnegie bought him out, and paid fairer wages and reduced the profits of the company stores. The point being that Pullman CANNOT abuse his workers indefinitely IN A FREE MARKET PLACE.

You, like so many, confuse greed with capitalism, alturism and socialism. If I can't feed my family, do you think I give a darn about how many deer there are--or are not? Or, am I going to shoot THAT deer, eating my rose bush, so I can feed my family?
Now, it's the same way as you keep scaling it up. I get paid x cents per pound for copper ore. I own the land the mine is under. Do I give a darn about the trees on the land--heck no, I want the money from the ore.
IF YOU don't like the WAY I'm STRIP minning the ORE, YOU can buy the land from me, when I am DONE. YOU can pay to plant TREES if YOU want to--I don't like trees they don't pay as much as copper ore... SEE?
NO, I don't owe humanity, the green party, nor anybody else ANYTHING. I earned the money to buy the land, discovered the ore, found a buyer, and paid for the equipment to get the ore to the buyer. I get paid to produce ore, not plant trees. If YOU want trees, you can pay for them AFTER I'm done strip mining the land. and I sell it for 3cents on the dollar of what I paid for it in the first place because I've destroyed it.
We'll discuss the tax man on a later date...

YOU are NOT required to stay in the coal town and get black lung disease mining coal. You can always MOVE... You don't have to sit in Seatlle jobless on the public dole, after being laid off. You can move to LA and work for MacDonald Douglas, move to Wichita and work for Cessna, or move to Atlanta and work for Gulfstream, maybe, if they need your services...

mrk,

Yes indeed, plutocracy; the opposite of which is socialism. So let me restate: in the absense of socialism plutocracy is the end-result and capitalism coexists with it just fine; i.e. capitalism does not in itself combat or counteract plutocracy.

Your example of striking workers is an example of a socialist movement. A plutocratic system would forbid the worker strikes. Similarly, when workers burn down factories they commit crimes and therefore fail to further their own cause by ending up in jail (or worse, brutalized by police in the employ of the plutocrats.) Only with built-in social protections that legalize such things as strikes and labor unions, could the workers successfully counteract the business owners' tendency to exploit the workforce for maximum profit.

As far as legislation, it should be ovious that abuses come precisely when there is no legislation to provide social protection. Just look at Malaysia, Indonesia, India, or any other favorite third-world country.


If I can't feed my family, do you think I give a darn about how many deer there are--or are not? Or, am I going to shoot THAT deer, eating my rose bush, so I can feed my family?


That's the point. You WILL shoot that deer if you have to feed your family and you have no other choice. It is the goal of socialism to give you an alternative route of action that would be more benign with respect to everyone else.


I own the land the mine is under. Do I give a darn about the trees on the land--heck no, I want the money from the ore.
IF YOU don't like the WAY I'm STRIP minning the ORE, YOU can buy the land from me, when I am DONE.


I don't think so. What if someone lives on that land of yours? What if your strip mine pollutes the ground water table for miles around? What if the forest you destroyed was a unique ecosystem and no amount of money or restoration will get it back? The land is not YOURS, even when you bought it. It is merely temporarily under your control. The problem is that the land supports others; others than you -- and will be needed to support others in the future. Grievous harm comes when people only focus upon themselves. Socialist policies serve to refocus the attention on the big picture and the common good.


NO, I don't owe humanity, the green party, nor anybody else ANYTHING.


But you do. You are part of humanity. You were nurtured by humanity to your adulthood. Throughout your life you enjoyed the fruits of past labor of others.

You obey society's laws because you owe society your cooperation. That much is required of you in order to maintain your membership in society. If you think you can hack it on your own, then you better first think real carefully.

And in case you do or plan to have children, your perspective might change a bit. You wouldn't want to saddle your progeny with a strip-mined, polluted, disfigured, impoverished, dying world; you wouldn't want them to curse your name and your memory every day of their miserable lives.

Finally no matter how grizzled an egotist you are, you do sometimes have to contemplate your place in the universe and how your existence affects the large scheme of things. Are you really content to live behind nothing but destruction in the wake of your selfish indulgences?


YOU are NOT required to stay in the coal town and get black lung disease mining coal. You can always MOVE...


Not necessarily. What if family circumstances anchor me where I am? What if I cannot afford the cost of living in that other place? You cannot always move. You do not always have a choice.

And what if I'm a child?

Bambi:
If I own the land, I inform MY tenants of my intents to strip mine, and evict them. Strip mining does not pollute (unless I am refining, which in this instance which was used only for explanatory purposes of the ideal, there was NO mention of refining, only processing e.g.: crushing raw ore.
You can be a socialist, but YOU cannot be one BY YOURSELF. The rest of us have to agree to SUBSIDIZE/PAY it/for it. I CAN be a solitary capitalist. I won't, and you can't (except with threats of incarceration, or death) make me.
I earn my way and pay for it. I only thing I want from my national government to enforce the Bill of Rights (which they suspended last month, and almost no one noticed--of course yelling it about it would be "unpatriotic", right now). I don't need the DEA, (I KNOW what to do when some jerk teaches my kid how to stick a needle of poison in his arm, thank you) EPA, OSHA, SSA, or any of the rest of their superfluous agencies which, to me are excuses to employ the incompetent. I am NURTURED by my OWN sweat and work. I have zero debt and no credit cards. I don't owe humanity ANYTHING because "humanity" provides me with NOTHING. Humanity does not provide me with O2, H2O nor food. I buy my meat and veggies from the grower, literally, (I'd buy my grains directly, too, but, instead I PAY Pillsbury to grow/pay to grow and grind it for me)...
You missed the point on the Strip mine as usual. I use it for that reason, btw. It really gets to the greeners. I OWN the land and the mineral rights (including the water), because I bought it with MY money. IF I pollute MY water, it's MY problem, unless I expect SOMEONE ELSE e.g.: Super FUND (Gee, where'd that come from, besides my back pocket) to pay to clean it for me. THAT IS MY POINT ABOUT SOCIALISM.
Socialism is about the abdication of responsibility! Capitalism, in its "pure", which can be seen on many street corners in the USA, form is about acceptance of it. As a capitalist, I am responsible for my welfare. I am responsible for feeding, clothing, and educating my children (and designing their curriculae). I am responsible and decide every facet of my life. Yes, I may well CHOOSE to pay others to provide various services for me, but that would be my CHOICE, not that of some bureaucratic fool who couldn't pass a basic English course, or who employs "teachers" who cannot distinguish between objective and subjective personal pronouns, and don't know their basic rights under the Constitution. I have a public school teacher living next to me-those are just some of her deficiencies, and is why I won't send my kids to public school, ever, and seriously resent paying for them.
In socialism, YOU give up YOUR rights and power to someone else to decide these things for you. Read George Orwell's 1984, again, and you'll find out what happens when Socialism is deteriorated to its lowest forms. Everything is fine as long as there are no "greedy" people running it. The minute you do have greedy people running them, well, they called him Stalin in Russia, or Hitler in Germany. Hitler was a totalitarian FACIST-same difference-the Party was supposedly Socialist and sold that way. They need living space, which why they invaded Austria which folded the same day... In ALL socialist societies, it is about THEM (whoever them is) providing SERVICES for ME to use at NO cost to me. Yeah, right. Well, someone sometime, somewhere has to GIVE them altruistically, or PAY for them, or they do not exist, just as Pullman OH didn't exist until Pullman BUILT it. Another point missed, almost. His "workers" burned it to the ground in an, as you pointed out, illegal fit of rage (when all they had to do was MOVE). They did not HAVE to strike and burn the town. They could have QUIT! They CHOSE to use violence against their employer rather than bankrupt him in a mass walk out.
Now, I went to private schools, where I received a better education than I could have at public schools (Rand was on the compulsory reading list, btw, as was Marx--who was a far better accountant/economist than he ever was a communist. Before you start yapping about how it was my
PARENTS and not me who paid for it, you're right, THEY did, I didn't. But when I was 18, I was asked to take out the trash, and found they'd packed my bags and changed the lock while I was out. :0
I have provided EVERYTHING for myself, since, with NO help from anyone including the TAX man, thank you very much. In point of fact, LBJ's Great Society's costs have greatly impeded the process for me, because some bleeding heart liberal wants to provide "social" services for the "downtrodden" poor who won't budge from watching Jerry or Oprah in their trailers.
Sweden is the ONLY country I know of where Socialism half-way works, and it COSTS 70% of your gross pay, to get it. I'd rather pay CASH for my "services", thank you, than allow an inept bureaucracy 'administer' them for me, thank you.
Yes, Socialism is "nicer" system for "all" including the undeserving--those who refuse to work. I would as soon let them starve, but I am "cruel" and "heartless" and as demanding of all as I am of myself.
Laws exist for those who WILL follow them--period. Have you NEVER broken a "law"? There are more than few who do it every time they fire up their bongs, and don't even think (or care) about how they are violating one of million unenforceable laws the feds have on the books, that we DON'T need. The only way of enforcing them is with the threat of incarceration (if that is a threat, and currently in "developed" nations it isn't much of one) or death. Three hots, a cot, and Oprah, what more do you want, if you WON'T work? OH, I forgot conjugal visits, well, in Europe I understand that's a right, too (rightly or wrongly--correction gratefully accepted, btw) unlike most of the US.
So if you're going to kill me for REFUSING to feed people too lazy to get up off their butts and do something to feed themselves besides sit in front of a begging bowl, shoot me, bill my family, if you can find them, for the bullet, and be done with it. But, that isn't socialist, it's totalitarian.
I was trying to point out that you were comparing capitalism the ideal, by using Plutocracy as the example as many socialists do, instead of capitalism (btw, a Plutocracy is a government run by the rich, not necessarily a capitalist government, at all). In Rhetoric classes, it's called a non sequitor (That's Latin for doesn't follow).
Socialism provides all of the same services to all that capitalism does, except you add in the cost of a bureaucracy to administer it "fairly" at the expense of the productive, and deprive the citizen of his CHOICE to participate, BY LAW.
Why do I have to pay for YOUR kid to eat? WHERE is the logic in this? What benefits shall I (Yes, I, personally) derive from it--If I LIKE you and I feel sorry for YOU and the rug rat, I may CHOOSE to support you. On the other hand, maybe we can work out a deal where you give me something I want and I give you the coin for your kid to eat... Gee, I wonder why Harry S. Truman was looking for a ONE handed economist? Gosh darn, we're back to capitalism, in it's purest form, again, now aren't we...?
BTW, I doubt you can find very many POOR, and working, socialists in the USA. If they're poor and WORKING, they want to KEEP every dime they make, not pay it out for "social" welfare they don't qualify for BECAUSE they work.
YOU ALWAYS have choices. Yes, you MAY choose to live with the choices of your parents for a time, but as soon as their choices are no longer yours, you CHANGE them, you grow up, sometimes faster than they. YOU ALWAYS have a choice in the USA.
If I must choose between your socialism, which is too easily perverted (as has the capitalism of the 18th Century) and it requires me to PAY for YOUR social services and death, then by all means, shoot me, now...

Accepting human frailties rather than attempting to CHANGE them to your (subjective) perception of "Right", is one of the turning points of life. I don't require others to accept my points of view, but I would like to be left in peace to live them as I see fit. Paying for social welfare is not among things I would do, left to myself, even unto paying for public education (which does, in some ways benefit me), however, that is not the case. Somebody who typically is registered at Yahoo-gee, go figure-is always screaming about the poor down trodden. Well Christ talked about that 2000 years ago or so, and He told us that THEY are ALWAYS with us, so I take his Semitic view, and ignore them as much as possible. If they WANT more, let them WORK more and buy it themselves.

"When a gun is held to the head of a man who thinks, and told, 'Don't Think!' the man replies, 'Pull the trigger [, fool {text added, mine}]'." Ayn Rand.

mrk,

I just want to say that I appreciate your thorough and thoughtful responses (even though as you can clearly see I disagree with much of what you say.)

As a prelude to my response to your last post, let me say that sometimes you seem to come across as if you are attacking some perverse, imaginative caricature of socialism. You seem to ascribe to it qualities and policies which really are not idempotent with the philosophy and sometimes even counter to it. Surely, you can have a corrupt and/or ineffective organization under any overriding philosophy; that in itself does not imply that a given social philosophy is in principle untenable, subversive or ineffective.

Originally posted by mrk


"When a gun is held to the head of a man who thinks, and told, 'Don't Think!' the man replies, 'Pull the trigger [, fool {text added, mine}]'." Ayn Rand.


You know, it's funny you decided to pull out that quote. What's happening here is that I'm not holding a gun to your head, and I'm actually telling you, 'Think!'


You can be a socialist, but YOU cannot be one BY YOURSELF. The rest of us have to agree to SUBSIDIZE/PAY it/for it. I CAN be a solitary capitalist. I won't, and you can't (except with threats of incarceration, or death) make me.


What is a law? A piece of binding legislation passed by a majority that "makes" everyone, even dissenters, obey. Perhaps I can't convince you, the individual. But maybe I can convince a majority. That's point number one.

You cannot be a solitary capitalist. With no other people present on the earth, all alone, capitalism means nothing. The problem is, Earth is full of people and we all have to live together somehow. That is called society; it is a collective thing. Point number two.

What you call "pure" capitalism is as naive and dysfunctional as "pure" socialism (Stalinism, Nazism, etc.) It is an abstract, idealized economic theory that ignores many social realities. While it can be used as a policy guide, by the virtue of its idealization and abstraction it cannot be the singular backbone of a healthy society. Which concludes my third point.


I earn my way and pay for it. I only thing I want from my national government to enforce the Bill of Rights (which they suspended last month, and almost no one noticed--of course yelling it about it would be "unpatriotic", right now).


You might want more than that. Perhaps an army to protect you from invaders? How about national standards to enable you to interoperate with others across the state? How about alliances and treaties with foreign nations? Law enforcement and crime prevention/suppression? How about someone to go to when a neighborhood oil refinery is dumping dioxins into your garden? Which brings us to:


I don't need the DEA, (I KNOW what to do when some jerk teaches my kid how to stick a needle of poison in his arm, thank you) EPA, OSHA, SSA, or any of the rest of their superfluous agencies which, to me are excuses to employ the incompetent.


I'm sorry that there are incompetent people employed in the government. Just like in any other large business where every single employee cannot be personally accounted for by the top supervisers. But you are right, government inefficiency is a problem and the government can definitely benefit from adoption of management practices from efficient businesses. However, an agency does not become unnecessary or useless due to inefficiency. What is needed is reform (real reform as opposed to political half-measures), not destruction.


I am NURTURED by my OWN sweat and work. ... I PAY Pillsbury to grow/pay to grow and grind it for me)...


That's fine, but the comfy high-technology, democratic society you live in today comes on top of millennia of hard labor by others. Incidentally, this really has little to do with arguments for socialism; rather, it is an invitation to consider the world beyond yourself as an actual part of you.


You missed the point on the Strip mine as usual. I use it for that reason, btw. It really gets to the greeners. I OWN the land and the mineral rights (including the water), because I bought it with MY money. IF I pollute MY water, it's MY problem, unless I expect SOMEONE ELSE e.g.: Super FUND (Gee, where'd that come from, besides my back pocket) to pay to clean it for me. THAT IS MY POINT ABOUT SOCIALISM.


I don't think I missed your point at all. But you did miss mine. First of all, "greeners" are not concerned about YOUR water or YOUR land or YOUR air because there are no such things. If you pollute "YOUR" land, the pollution can travel over and under the surface to poison others very far from your original crime. If you destroy a unique ecosystem on "YOUR" land, you are robbing the entirety of humanity of its biological heritage for all time to come. If you burn down too many rainforests on "YOUR" lands, you might even cause a local if not global climate catastrophy. And finally, a lot is to be said for public land that is forever secured from development and reserved for clean environment, biological sanctuary or public enjoyment; even if you might not appreciate that very many others do.

With respect to the general attitude of the "greeners", protecting nature from abuse is merely a special case. The overarching principle could be summed up as "global responsibility". It is a postulate recognizing that your actions affect not only yourself but many others and sometimes the entire planet -- just like do the actions of many others affect you and some actions of all others affect you. It is really a generalization of the "golden rule".


Socialism is about the abdication of responsibility! Capitalism, in its "pure", which can be seen on many street corners in the USA, form is about acceptance of it. As a capitalist, I am responsible for my welfare. ...


We are talking about two different kinds of responsibility. One can be responsible for something. At the same time, one can be responsible (as opposed to irresponsible.) The word has multiple meanings, which is why you may have confused the issues.

Socialism does not abdicate your personal responsibility to take care of yourself. However, as a generalization of the intention present in any body of law, it in addition requires you to be a responsible member of your society in particular and the world in general.

With respect to personal responsibility, what socialism does propose is giving you tools to make your job easier or to even do your job for you when you become incapable of doing it yourself for whatever reason. Note that this does not mean socialism is all about dysfunctional wellfare systems that actually encourage their participants to form a dependence on them. One wellfare system can succeed where another one failed.


I am responsible for feeding, clothing, and educating my children (and designing their curriculae).


What about orphans? What if you work 14 hours a day just to make ends meet, and have no energy or time left for taking care of your children? What if in your absense your children are "taken care of" by the neighborhood gangs in the ghetto where you live because you can't afford a better place?

Generally speaking, you sound as if you really don't know what it's like to be poor or to grow up poor. You sound as if you are incapable of imagining yourself in another man's shoes without transplanting your entire background and life's history in the process.


I am responsible and decide every facet of my life.


And that's good, and socialism is not against it but indeed for it. It is a philosophy of empowerment, not of inhibition. If you are capable of taking care of yourself without social assistance, great! You won't get the assistance. However, those who need assistance should be given it.

You have to realise that while you may be in control of your life at any given moment, things can quickly change. You can control your personal choices, but you can't control your fate. Tomorrow, you can be stabbed in a mugging and paralyzed for the rest of your life. What will you do then without social assistance, if you don't have a personal fortune or supportive family to rely on?


I have a public school teacher living next to me-those are just some of her deficiencies, and is why I won't send my kids to public school, ever, and seriously resent paying for them.


I wholeheartedly agree that the current state of public schools is horrendous. My position, however, would be to fix them rather than axe them. Instead of resenting having to pay for public schools, perhaps you should be resenting the fact that these schools are as rundown and dysfunctional as they are. They can be A LOT better. Just visit any other western country's public school for an example.


In socialism, YOU give up YOUR rights and power to someone else to decide these things for you.


Not really. Socialism does not preclude or impede democracy. Of course, if you are arguing against democracy (and for anarchy) then it's a whole new issue.


Read George Orwell's 1984, again, and you'll find out what happens when Socialism is deteriorated to its lowest forms. Everything is fine as long as there are no "greedy" people running it.


Come on, let's not get boggled down in caricatures. Socialism is only obligatory in that it relies on taxes to support its programs. That's it. It cannot force you to participate in any of its programs; as soon as it tries it is no longer socialism but something else (totalitarianism comes to mind.) One has to guard against totalitarianism no matter what starting policy: socialism, communism, capitalism, feudalism, you name it. As was famously said, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.


In ALL socialist societies, it is about THEM (whoever them is) providing SERVICES for ME to use at NO cost to me. Yeah, right. Well, someone sometime, somewhere has to GIVE them altruistically, or PAY for them, or they do not exist, just as Pullman OH didn't exist until Pullman BUILT it.


Of course, socialism is NOT free and nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. Social programs are paid for by taxes. All members of society are expected to contribute their share in taxes according to their ability. All members of a democratic society are also expected to keep an eye on those programs to make sure their money is getting put to use as efficiently as possible.


Now, I went to private schools, where I received a better education than I could have at public schools (Rand was on the compulsory reading list, btw, as was Marx--who was a far better accountant/economist than he ever was a communist.


Now give me one good reason why public schools cannot have a quality curriculum. Demonstrate why Rand or Marx are incompatible with public schools. And if you can't, then the problem is not with the public schools but in how they are being run. The need is for massive reform and restructuring -- just exactly what you do for an ailing business.


Before you start yapping about how it was my PARENTS and not me who paid for it, you're right, THEY did, I didn't. But when I was 18, I was asked to take out the trash, and found they'd packed my bags and changed the lock while I was out. :0


It is good for you and your parents that they were able to afford to pay for you and send you to a quality private school. Not everybody is so fortunate.

As far as the coming-of-age story, right on. Despite what you might have imagined, it does not go against socialist principles. As a matter of fact, I wholeheartedly agree that is precisely how success should be passed from one generation to the next.


I have provided EVERYTHING for myself, since, with NO help from anyone including the TAX man, thank you very much. In point of fact, LBJ's Great Society's costs have greatly impeded the process for me, because some bleeding heart liberal wants to provide "social" services for the "downtrodden" poor who won't budge from watching Jerry or Oprah in their trailers.


You assume too much. You assume that everyone will have it as good as you did. And before you launch into a laundry list of all the hardships you had to endure, let me tell you they are nothing compared to how bad it really can get. You also assume too much about the poor and why they are the way they are. Clearly, you haven't lived among them or ever bothered to even take a look for longer than it takes to spit on them.


Sweden is the ONLY country I know of where Socialism half-way works, and it COSTS 70% of your gross pay, to get it. I'd rather pay CASH for my "services", thank you, than allow an inept bureaucracy 'administer' them for me, thank you.


Yet Swedish people are among the happiest and most comfortable on this planet. I believe they even work only something like 30 hours a week.


Yes, Socialism is "nicer" system for "all" including the undeserving--those who refuse to work. I would as soon let them starve, but I am "cruel" and "heartless" and as demanding of all as I am of myself.


No, that is not what socialism is about. Providing those who refuse to work with social services is just plain stupid. Those people, you just let them go live on the street until they decide to change their minds. However, if you really looked you would discover there are very few such people. The reason the old U.S. wellfare system was dysfunctional is because it failed to demand personal progress either via job training or actually working an available job while the participants received assistance. Tying encouragement of self-sufficiency to social assistance is crucial to the success of any wellfare system.


There are more than few who do it every time they fire up their bongs, and don't even think (or care) about how they are violating one of million unenforceable laws the feds have on the books, that we DON'T need.


Overcomplication or illegitimacy of a legal code is not a counterargument against socialism. Socialism does not imply unnecessary and/or ineffective laws.


Socialism provides all of the same services to all that capitalism does, except you add in the cost of a bureaucracy to administer it "fairly" at the expense of the productive, and deprive the citizen of his CHOICE to participate, BY LAW.


Agains, the services are for all who deserve them by holding up their own end of the bargain (as long as they are capable of doing so.) With respect to social laws, individuals never have a "CHOICE" to participate, under any social system or philosophy. In democratic settings, they do have the choice to advocate for different laws.


Why do I have to pay for YOUR kid to eat? WHERE is the logic in this? What benefits shall I (Yes, I, personally) derive from it...


As I already said, treat others as you would have them treat you. Quite simple. You can think of your investment in social programs as a downpayment on a rainy day, as your insurance. The rainy day may never come, but in case it does there will now be a net there to catch your fall.

But also alleviating the pandemic of poverty would reduce crime and increase security. You would like to live in a more peaceful, harmonious, secure country -- wouldn't you? Or would you rather have an actual reason for arming yourself to your teeth?


BTW, I doubt you can find very many POOR, and working, socialists in the USA. If they're poor and WORKING, they want to KEEP every dime they make, not pay it out for "social" welfare they don't qualify for BECAUSE they work.


First of all, socialism enjoys its strongest support among the poor because they would be the ones most likely to benefit from it. Secondly, any social program that disqualifies people from benefiting because they are capable of supporting themselves is perverse and counterproductive.


YOU ALWAYS have a choice in the USA.


You live in a fairytale land. Talk to any long-time cop to get an insight into the real complexities of USA life.


If I must choose between your socialism, which is too easily perverted (as has the capitalism of the 18th Century)...


Exactly. It is not perverted any more easily than any other policy of government. If you think otherwise, give reasons why (which wouldn't apply to other social philosophies.) It is too easy to cite the examples of past socialist failures. However, you already pointed out yourself that in Sweden it is successful. Similarly, one can point out many instances where non-socialist government systems are perverted, and yet other instances when the perversion is avoided.

Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations: http://www.cpm.ehime-u.ac.jp/AkamacHomePage/Akamac_E-text_Links/Smith.html

Marx & Engels' Communist Manifesto: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/26/176.html

Engels Socialism Utopian and Scientific: http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1880-SUS/sus92a.html


The majority of people spoil their lives by an unhealthy and exaggerated altruism - are forced, indeed, so to spoil them. They find themselves surrounded by hideous poverty, by hideous ugliness, by hideous starvation. It is inevitable that they should be strongly moved by all this. The emotions of man are stirred more quickly than man's intelligence; and, as I pointed out some time ago in an article on the function of criticism, it is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering than it is to have sympathy with thought. Accordingly, with admirable though misdirected intentions, they very seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see. But their remedies do not cure the disease: they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease.

They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor.

But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good; and at last we have had the spectacle of men who have really studied the problem and know the life - educated men who live in the East End - coming forward and imploring the community to restrain its altruistic impulses of charity, benevolence, and the like. They do so on the ground that such charity degrades and demoralises. They are perfectly right. Charity creates a multitude of sins.

There is also this to be said. It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property. It is both immoral and unfair. (Oscar Wilde)Wilde's The Soul of Man Under Socialism: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/wilde_soul.html

In the end, the reason Capitalism seems so attractive to people is that it is easy. The capitalists I know in daily life treat each other horribly by convention. If I seem a little sensitive about that, it's because I just spent a weekend listening to it. And therein lies a question: is Capitalism restricted to how we view money and the potential of money, or does it bleed over into other relationships--How do you profit by your friendships? (Note: If it seems insignificant, it's because it is common--think of the hypocrisy of a parent who calls their infant child a "blessing" yet in later years demands that the child "earn their keep in the family"; frankly, if it's that much of a hardship, why did the idiots choose to raise children? Yet we hear people talk to their kids like this daily; everyone's value becomes their financial worth regardless of their contribution to the greater human endeavor.) But yes, Capitalism is easy: it means you expend no investment toward friendship without guarantee of a greater return. It's no different than giving a woman the wrong phone number and a hybrid of your best friends' name (Hi, my name is Chan-Huan Jones!) just to get her into the sack. Seriously: What happens when we apply Capitalist mores to human associations?

Please remember: I live in a locality where the constituency frequenly votes against school and basic emergency funding because the individual voters don't feel enough of a financial profit from such community endeavors. Seriously, we spent $500+ million on a baseball stadium, and we're amid a similar--perhaps taller--expense for a new football stadium; why can we cough up $1 billion in civic funds for sports arenas and not schools? The potential financial impact of a pro sports team is documentable on paper. When comes the generation of students too stupid to read that documentation will also come that generation of students too stupid to understand why such documents are important. But remember: when it comes to education, we must economize our investment and maximize our profit. Is it any wonder schools are considering allowing corporate takeover? It's capitalism; it needs $5.00/hour peanut vendors and does not need public education.Socialism is about the abdication of responsibility! Capitalism, in its "pure", which can be seen on many street corners in the USA, form is about acceptance of itI wanted to comment on a couple of MRK's points. First and foremost, for the purposes of illustration, I would like to inquire by what means did you acquire the strip mine?

Secondly: in the United States, there is only one pure capitalism--black market. It is only beneath the cover of criminal activity that capitalism operates without the veneer of human conscience capitalism so despises. Which brings up the counterpoint, from the aforementioned Oscar Wilde:The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others which, in the present condition of things, presses so hardly upon almost everybody.Which responsibility does Socialism ask you to abdicate?

The only reason any Utopia is impossible is because people choose that it should be. We're the human species: we can get to the moon, broadcast a half-watt back through the solar system, replace your heart with a machine, get erections from pills, reshape the landscape, extinct species and, if we choose, destroy ourselves. Who here is going to tell me that the one thing the human species can't do is operate according to the integrity of its better conscience? Neither economic prosperity nor religious blackmail nor simple appeals to what is obvious and demonstrable seem to work. It is simple greed for excess that prevents any Utopia under any label.

Would somebody tell me why murder is illegal? If it's for the cholera threat, we need to revoke the prohibition.

Ah, it's better for society? Well now, it looks like we're not exactly Capitalists if we won't personally kill for profit, eh? That thing about respecting life is a little to pinko, y'know ;)

There are better things to aspire to; I always wonder why we don't.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

Warning quite long!!.

Theory
Capitalism is a social system vased on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.
The recoginition of individual rights entails the bansihment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the goverment in such a society, is the task of protecting man's rights, i.e. , the task of protecting him from physical force; the goverment acts as the agent of man's right of self-defence, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the goverment is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control. "What is Capitalism?Pg.19" Ayn Rand


When I say "capitalism," I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism--with seperation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the seperation of state and church."The Objectivist Ethics" Ayn Rand

The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the alturist claim that it represents the best way to achieve "the common good." It is true that capitalism does--if that catch-frace has any meaning-but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man's rational nature, that it protects man's survival qua man, and that its ruling principles is: Justice."What is capatilism Pg.20"

The action required to sustain human life is primarily intellectual: everything man needs has to be discovered by his mind and produced by his effort. Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival.
Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man's survival requieres that those who think be free of the interference of those who don't. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgement. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man's mind. (Ibid.,17)

The above is just a little, Trully one has to examine the concepts of capitalism through the eyes of Ayn Rand.

Capitalism did not cause poverty it inhereted it. Ayn Rand.

Godless,

I'm not sure what your point was. If you weren't responding to any recent posts but to the first post of the thread, I would understand. However, what are your thoughts on socialism (to be explicit, not as an alternative to (popular misconception), but a complementary gap-filler for, capitalism?)

Originally posted by Bambi
Godless,

I'm not sure what your point was. If you weren't responding to any recent posts but to the first post of the thread, I would understand. However, what are your thoughts on socialism (to be explicit, not as an alternative to (popular misconception), but a complementary gap-filler for, capitalism?)

Well Banbi since I came late in this I was refering to the first post on capitalism. However my thoughts of socialism!. and the way that you are trying to explain is what it exist in the US, it's not socialism as a gap-filter, it's called a "mixed economy" that is capitalism with goverment control, and as seen it does not work well!.

__________________________________________________ __

Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to "him", but belongs to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good. ("For The New Intellectual" Ayn Rand)

The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use & disposal) is vested in "society as a whole," i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the goverment.
Socialism may be stablished by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics--or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in "Formal" Rusia-or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same.
The alleged goals of socialism were: the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. The results have been a terrifying failure--terrifying, that is if one's motive is men's welfare.
Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly. ("The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand)

These are just a sample of her writting, on the topic of Socialism, if you would like to know more, read some of her books. Start with "Capitalism The Unknown Ideal"

Interesting to hear Ayn Rand's opinion on the issue. Even though I was asking for yours. But since I'm apparently talking to Ayn Rand, then let me address her points:


Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, ... , and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good. ("For The New Intellectual" Ayn Rand)

...
The degree of socialization may be total, as in "Formal" Rusia-or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same.
The alleged goals of socialism were: the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. The results have been a terrifying failure--terrifying, that is if one's motive is men's welfare.
Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly. ("The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand)


First of all, we seem to be defining Socialism as an extreme philosophy first and then varying the degree to which this extreme postulate is approximated to account for reality. Sort of like trying to define Christianity as a religion of raving lunatics, and then proceeding to state that in actuality most Christians are merely a moderate manifestation of that religion.

Secondly, where does she get off concluding that "Theoretically, the differences are superficial"? I'm sorry, but the sort of socialism I've been arguing in my posts is more than theoretically, superficially different from the extremism she appears to foist upon her readers. Then again, what is this: "The basic principle, in all cases, is the same" ? Stalinist Russia and democratic Sweden are based on the same basic principles? Hello?

I'm sure the European Union is a manifest disaster in progress. At the same time, has anyone really taken a careful look at the alleged American "success"? I've already provided some simple statistics in my previous posts that argue quite the opposite.

What I think Rand has done, is deliberately confuse the issues. She took what in essense is a very limited slice of Socialism and infused Capitalism with it, redefining the latter in the process. At the same time, she selects the extreme right-wing outliers on the Socialist spectrum and redefines them as Socialism. I'm sure it's very convenient to mix terminology like this when pushing the elitist, plutocratic agenda of the endowed rich while pulling the wool over the eyes of the overwhelming majority of the not so well-endowed.

Secondly, where does she get off concluding that "Theoretically, the differences are superficial"?

~~~

Where does she get off?

Or perhaps you're wondering where does Godless get off?

Or, where does anyone get off making such bold statements?

Such would not be unusual reactions from (most) people who haven't read Rand.

But....

~~~


I'm sure the European Union is a manifest disaster in progress. At the same time, has anyone really taken a careful look at the alleged American "success"? I've already provided some simple statistics in my previous posts that argue quite the opposite.

~~~

Your statistics may be quite factual. Or not.

A couple of us who have posted on this thread have made simple or polite suggestions that it might be interesting or enlightening for others to read Rand's works. Mere snippets of her writings have been quoted here. Scarcely enough material, I think, to justify such a harsh reaction.

Godless may respond as he/she chooses, of course. But I fail to see any cause for the tone of your last post. You aren't pleased that Godless (or others) aren't debating in a fashion you like? Providing information of a sort that you prefer? It's a public forum and people will offer whatever they think relevant--including you. Still, and with all due respect, I think you've missed a point or two here. There is a bigger picture, indeed. Have you taken in as much as you can of the view?

As for reading Rand, you might be surprised to discover the level of insight this woman philosopher and writer had; insight not only into Capitalism, but into man, into what it is to be a human.

If you have already read Rand and have formed your opinions on discoveries already made, then so be it. If not, maybe the opinions of others who have don't quite deserve such an impatient rebuff?


Your right to post as you please. Your tone or choice of target however may lead others to misinterpret your purpose.

~~~

Counterbalance

Capitalism is a social system (b)ased on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Capitalism is an economic system.

Capitalism ...

Capital: http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=capital 2a. Wealth in the form of money or property, used or accumulated in a business by a person, partnership, or corporation.
b. Material wealth used or available for use in the production of more wealth.
c. Human resources considered in terms of their contributions to an economy: “ [The] swift unveiling of his... plans provoked a flight of human capital” (George F. Will). Capitalism ...

-ism: http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=ism 1. Action; process; practice: terrorism.
2. Characteristic behavior or quality: heroism.
3. a. State; condition; quality: pauperism.
b. State or condition resulting from an excess of something specified: strychninism.
4. Distinctive or characteristic trait: Latinism.
5. a. Doctrine; theory; system of principles: pacifism.
b. An attitude of prejudice against a given group: racism. Capitalism: http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=capitalism An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

an economic system based on private ownership of capital (syn: capitalist economy) (ant: socialism)Interestingly, however, and to get away from dictionary.com, it is worth noting that Capitalist.org shares Godless' opinion that capitalism is a "social system", and also banners that moral altruism quote from page 20 of Rand. I took the children's tour, and saw a bunch of indoctrinating BS that makes capitalism into a full-blown political platform, including military policy. Strangely, there were a bunch of patriotic American pictures in the "Visual Tour", but the site described a society that is not the United States.A society where one man's gain is never at someone else's sacrifice, but at best is to the mutual benefit of both.

A society where each man is free to pursue his own happiness, wherever it may take him.I'll stop there because I'm just flipping through the tour and lifting a sentence here and there. It's an amazing set of assertions, and no wonder they keep referring to it as the unknown ideal.

One thing of note is that Capitalism.org, whose definition of Capitalism very nearly reflects Godless', stresses that it operates by a broader philosophic definition. It is, essentially, a different Capitalism than the economic theory. This is important to bear in mind when defending Capitalism against classic criticisms.

The FAQ is hilarious:Who is the poor man better off under: Mother Teresa or Bill Gates?
A Mother Teresa who hands them bowls of slop every day, so they can barely exist--or a genius like Bill Gates who creates a fortune for himself by helping others to create fortunes for themselves, i.e., "where the first feeds them for a day, the second helps them feed themselves." Observe that it is the Bill Gates of the world who are not allowed to exist in India--and the Mother Teresas who areYou know ... you'll notice that the author of the FAQ doesn't really address what happened to India under the British and the long-term consequences of that period.

I'd drag Aldous Huxley into it, but it's late and I need sleep. But consider that a prosperous nation has no need for history, and a poor nation has no vision of the future.

I'll have to read more into http://capitalism.org to find out what they think of Disney paying 29 cents an hour for the Pocohontas pj's to be made in Central America. I'll bet you that created some well-paid American jobs.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Counterbalance,

I just read your post and was about to reiterate the point that Capitalism is merely an economic philosophy, not a social one. By that time Tiassa beat me to it, I guess. But please consider the point made.

As for Ayn Rand, I've read a little. Can't claim to be a Rand specialist, but I've read enough to know that her "amazing" insight does not appeal to me. Frankly, reading her I find so many questionable assumptions and phony arguments, that I cannot read her for extended periods of time without ending up wanting to strangle something. Reading her makes me want to write my own series of books specifically targeted at dispelling all the idiocies she comes up with. Of course, I'm not a very good book writer whereas she is -- that much I will give her.

In the specific quotes Godless provided, I've already pointed out a few problems. Let me just focus on the most egregious error: equating Socialism with Stalinism. Rand, like so many after her (undoubtedly many being her fans), makes the basic mistake of assuming that Socialism is incompatible with Democracy and/or Capitalism. It is compatible. I'm not carrying out an either-or argument. Rather, the question is why are we content to have Capitalism and Democracy without Socialism.

The principal reason for economic failure of the Communist bloc was bad economic policy (DUH!), not bad social policy. Experience has shown that market-driven capitalistic economy is by far superior to state-driven, 5-year-plan, artificial, bureaucratic "economy" of the Communist countries past and present. That should have been a lesson learned decades ago; by now one thinks we should have moved on...

The issue now is social, not economic, policy. With respect to the economic superiority of market-driven Capitalism over other economic policies, there is no contest, there is a hands-down clear winner. Now can we focus on the social policy, please? Have I made it clear enough?

I'm sorry if I come across as rude. That's not my intention. I just want to 1) get to the heart of the matter, and 2) hear peoples own thoughts rather than regurgitation of Rand.

A parting thought before you turn in for the night, tiassa...

I'll stop there because I'm just flipping through the tour and lifting a sentence here and there. It's an amazing set of assertions, and no wonder they keep referring to it as the unknown ideal.


If you're referring to any of Rand's assertions, (which might be part or parcel of the underpinning doctrines of these sites) recall one of my previous posts where I pointed out that Rand's ideas might need some time to "breathe" in a back cellar of one's mind for a spell? More importantly, and regardless of what one's final opinion might be of her philosophy, it isn't possible to truly grasp where she's coming from UNTIL one of her works, like Atlas Shrugged have been read and digested. This is where you will find the rationale and the examples, I think, most useful in aiding understanding.

Frankly, and I would say this to anyone... whether you wanted to dispute or to support her notions, the best, most fair way, would be to truly familiarize yourself with her works.

~~~

Counterbalance

If you're referring to any of Rand's assertions, (which might be part or parcel of the underpinning doctrines of these sites) recall one of my previous posts where I pointed out that Rand's ideas might need some time to "breathe" in a back cellar of one's mind for a spell? Actually, Counterbalance, I was lifting those assertions from the childrens' propaganda tour at capitalism.org. What I think is crushing about the couple I that this capitalism being promoted in this topic is different from that addressed by Communism or that addressed by the topic citation regarding Boeing.

When it comes to Rand, why are we taking a novelist's view of capitalism instead of a social scientist's? (Capitalism.org chooses to call Rand a novelist; I would have said social philosopher, but let's take the capitalists' version of it.) I noticed very little from Adam Smith or other fundamental capitalist writings on the site (Hirschmann?); it seems they're devoted entirely to Rand.

But specifically: A society where one ma